Once again we’re going to examine Dogsbite.org and the validity of information on their site being presented as fact whereas it’s complete propaganda based on disinformation…..
As you can see this Dogsbite post claiming “Pit Bull Laws save lives” exclaims:….
Now the reality of the situation in Sioux City where the pit bull ban is everything but successful…..
Timeline: Sioux City dog ordinances
Council members first vote to change the city’s vicious animal laws, requiring animals that bite without provocation to be euthanized.
The rule change makes headlines when a Labrador retriever owned by then-Councilman Aaron Rochester bites a neighbor and is declared vicious. The dog, Jake, was slated to be killed but was stolen from his kennel at animal control. He was never found.
Sioux City’s pit bull ban takes effect. The ordinance is updated in 2009.
April 25, 2009:
All pit bulls not registered or licensed prior to this date are banned from the city.
The City Council votes 3-2 to uphold the pit bull ban.
The council also revamps its vicious dog ordinance and rescinds the mandatory euthanasia. The city institutes a three-step process allowing owners of high-risk dogs to reclaim their pets.
Two Sioux City dog owners file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court claiming the ordinance, passed in 2008, is enforced in an arbitrary, inconsistent and discriminatory manner, bans animals that are not harmful and does not ban animals that do pose a risk to harm other animals or humans.
“SIOUX CITY “|
“Eight years after the Sioux City Council enacted a controversial ordinance banning pit bulls from city limits, the number of dog bites reported in Woodbury County is showing a slight increase.
Siouxland District Health statistics show that countywide, 137 dog bites were reported in 2015, up from 110 in 2007, the year before the ban was passed.
During the same time period, the number of pit bull bites has dropped significantly. Siouxland District Health reported 24 bites by pit bull and pit bull mixes in 2007, a number that decreased to four in 2015. The number of reported pit bull bites has not risen above the single digits since 2011. “
Sioux City’s oft-debated ban has surfaced once again in the headlines after two local dog owners filed suit in August, saying the city’s ban is unconstitutional.
The owners say the law bans animals that are not harmful and does not ban animals that do pose a risk to harm other animals or humans. They also say the law is enforced in an arbitrary, inconsistent and discriminatory manner.
- IAN RICHARDSON email@example.com
Well if Sioux cities been a success I’d hate to see the places where there’s been issues?
It really is quite indicative of dogsbite with typically inaccurate and bias claims and assertions and considering their main source considers reading a newspaper to be researching but considering he stasrted off as a seciond rate lournalist is it any wonder his “work’ has deteriorated to little more then propganda.
“Sioux City, IA passed a ban on pit bulls in mid-year 2008 – -and over the past 6 years has been the source of a lot of embarrassing moments for the city, including:
3) Breed identification issues due in part to the veterinary community refusing to work with the city to enforce the law
5) A situation where one of the council members who was instrumental in passing the ban in 2008, had his own Labrador Retreiver named Jake, seized for getting loose and attacking a man who was jogging, and then was stolen from the city pound the day before he was to be put down and was never seen again.
6) The embarrassing confrontation with a navy veteran who served 3 tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq for being a day late in regstering his pit bull.
Last month, the Sioux City Journal (IA) ran an interesting, and fairly detailed article about the impact of the city’s 6 year old ban on pit bulls — noting in the headline that the impact of the ban was “unclear”. There is some data provided in the news article, and some of it has been used by a handful of pro-BSL zealots to try to promote the “Success” of BSL in Sioux City.”
CHARLES CITY | The City Council will vote on a new licensing system for dogs that will inclu… (source globegazette.com)
“SIOUX CITY — As Britt deals with backlash from its pit bull ban, another Iowa city has been sued by two women who claim that community’s ban on such dogs is unconstitutional.
Two Sioux City dog owners want that city’s ordinance banning pit bulls declared unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to due process.
Jennifer Frost, who had to place her dog, Jake, with family in New York to comply with the ordinance, and a woman referred to as Jane Doe want an injunction prohibiting Sioux City from enforcing the ordinance in the meantime.
Plans to enforce a pit bull ban in Britt caused controversy, leading officials there to form a committee last week to study its ordinance.”
It most certainly doesn’t seem as though the pit bull ban in Sioux city is working depending on your definition of working I guess, Bsl is good at killing pit bulls whereas not so effective at actually preventing dog bite related fatalities.
Non pit bull types have killed 128 people that’s one person per month each and every month for the last ten years and assuming you’re not comfortable with there being another 128 victims to non banned breeds in the next ten years too you’ll promote breed neutral legislation asnd ensure the elderly and the young are protected from all dangerous dogs and not just dangerous dogs that look like pit bulls.
Dogsbite by their own admission have “no professiona advice” therfore discarding them as credible sources for anything let alone using their so called statistics to formulate public safety initiatives.
more to come…..